You have to stop spreading lies to impressionable juniors and beginners. The TW Board experts have concluded that the 1bh is detrimental to your game.

At my club we have implemented the follow rules, aiming to curb the spread of 1bh addiction.

1: 1bh have to pay 50 percent more on all purchases, dues, court and instruction fees.
2: no more than one 1bh is allowed to be in the same court.
3: If a 1bh is playing, they can only play on the back courts so that the juniors will not see them play.
4: we have many programs to help 1bh members to swtich to 2bh.
5: a "don't ask don't tell policy" about how you hit your backhand.
6: Marriage defense act. A 1bh's marriage is not recognized within the confines of the club.

Click to expand...

I got a good laugh outta this! I am gonna try to work on a 2HBH before my club implements equivalent policies!

I think tennis elbow is much more likely to happen when players use the Continental and Eastern grips.

Furthermore, many recreational players who taught themselves the 1hbh use grips that are in the continental range (in fact, I've seen many players just use an Eastern forehand grip on their 1hbh!).

Thus, I think it's likely that many of the cases to TE we might see are due simply to an excessively weak grip, even if it is Eastern.

Players that use an Extreme Eastern (8/1) make contact much further out in front, which creates a stronger arm structure at contact and also reduces the tendency to muscle or wrist the ball.

In short, I think it is a mistake to treat all 1hbhs the same. The liabilities of the 1hbh are much mitigated, or possibly eliminated, by using an Extreme Eastern backhand grip.

Thus, compared with the other 1hbh grips, using the extreme grip:

1- Reduces susceptibility to tennis elbow
2- Generates more topspin and thus more consistency, and often more power
3- Increases the strike zone, particularly for high balls
4- Reduces the forward-back footwork requirements (because of point 3)
5- Is easier to learn because of 2,3,4; and because opening the body is more natural both for the grip and for the player; and because acquiring a good slice backhand is not as essential (because of 3 and 4)

and as a bonus,
6- Allows most small players to generate more consistent power than they would with a 2hbh.

Let me end with an analogy -- Imagine there were only two types of forehands under consideration: A continental-grip forehand (like McEnroe, Edberg), and a 2-handed forehand (SW bottom grip, like Seles). Which stroke would be the preferred modern forehnad among players and coaches?

I'm guessing that the 2hFh would, and people would be talking about how the 1hFh is obsolete.

Of course, the 1-handed Forehand is not obsolete when we take into account the SW grip.

I think tennis elbow is much more likely to happen when players use the Continental and Eastern grips.

Furthermore, many recreational players who taught themselves the 1hbh use grips that are in the continental range (in fact, I've seen many players just use an Eastern forehand grip on their 1hbh!).

Thus, I think it's likely that many of the cases to TE we might see are due simply to an excessively weak grip, even if it is Eastern.

Players that use an Extreme Eastern (8/1) make contact much further out in front, which creates a stronger arm structure at contact and also reduces the tendency to muscle or wrist the ball.

In short, I think it is a mistake to treat all 1hbhs the same. The liabilities of the 1hbh are much mitigated, or possibly eliminated, by using an Extreme Eastern backhand grip.

Thus, compared with the other 1hbh grips, using the extreme grip:

1- Reduces susceptibility to tennis elbow
2- Generates more topspin and thus more consistency, and often more power
3- Increases the strike zone, particularly for high balls
4- Reduces the forward-back footwork requirements (because of point 3)
5- Is easier to learn because of 2,3,4; and because opening the body is more natural both for the grip and for the player; and because acquiring a good slice backhand is not as essential (because of 3 and 4)

and as a bonus,
6- Allows most small players to generate more consistent power than they would with a 2hbh.

Let me end with an analogy -- Imagine there were only two types of forehands under consideration: A continental-grip forehand (like McEnroe, Edberg), and a 2-handed forehand (SW bottom grip, like Seles). Which stroke would be the preferred modern forehnad among players and coaches?

I'm guessing that the 2hFh would, and people would be talking about how the 1hFh is obsolete.

Of course, the 1-handed Forehand is not obsolete when we take into account the SW grip.

Same idea with the 1hbh.

Click to expand...

Good points. Research also show that the weak wrist over flex contributes to TE. Sports doctors recommend strengthening exercises to prevent the issue.

I do not recommend the 1hb for little kids BUT I do have parents who request it. In these cases I make sure they do exercises to balance the muscles, strengthen the wrist, use the proper grip, and monitor any discomfort.

I think tennis elbow is much more likely to happen when players use the Continental and Eastern grips.

Furthermore, many recreational players who taught themselves the 1hbh use grips that are in the continental range (in fact, I've seen many players just use an Eastern forehand grip on their 1hbh!).

Thus, I think it's likely that many of the cases to TE we might see are due simply to an excessively weak grip, even if it is Eastern.

Players that use an Extreme Eastern (8/1) make contact much further out in front, which creates a stronger arm structure at contact and also reduces the tendency to muscle or wrist the ball.

In short, I think it is a mistake to treat all 1hbhs the same. The liabilities of the 1hbh are much mitigated, or possibly eliminated, by using an Extreme Eastern backhand grip.

Thus, compared with the other 1hbh grips, using the extreme grip:

1- Reduces susceptibility to tennis elbow
2- Generates more topspin and thus more consistency, and often more power
3- Increases the strike zone, particularly for high balls
4- Reduces the forward-back footwork requirements (because of point 3)
5- Is easier to learn because of 2,3,4; and because opening the body is more natural both for the grip and for the player; and because acquiring a good slice backhand is not as essential (because of 3 and 4)

and as a bonus,
6- Allows most small players to generate more consistent power than they would with a 2hbh.

Let me end with an analogy -- Imagine there were only two types of forehands under consideration: A continental-grip forehand (like McEnroe, Edberg), and a 2-handed forehand (SW bottom grip, like Seles). Which stroke would be the preferred modern forehnad among players and coaches?

I'm guessing that the 2hFh would, and people would be talking about how the 1hFh is obsolete.

Of course, the 1-handed Forehand is not obsolete when we take into account the SW grip.

with a straight arm 1hbh, and contact point in front, the risk of TE is minimal... and the forward contact point dictates that extreme E is very good, especially for juniors who have to deal a lot of high balls. (relative to them)

The whole point of my asking this question was because mini-tennis removes the issue of high balls, at least through Red and Orange. Interestingly, when I was doing some research last night I found that Red (8&u) the ball never bounced above shoulder height for the contact, Orange (9&u) the same, ball might bounce above but never required a contact above shoulder.
Green (10&u) and Yellow (11+) however, were a slightly different story - seems to me the development of the child physically doesn't stay ahead of the compression of the ball (speaking generally) so they have to deal with higher bouncing balls for their height at Green and Yellow, relative to their height at Red and Orange.

My thoughts on the grip are therefore confirmed (I think) - eastern (knuckle on 1) to begin and allowing it to slide around to knuckle on 1/8 or 8 as required by the move to green/yellow.

^^^ I doubt I will. Initially I go knuckle on 3 or maybe 3/4 for forehand and knuckle on 1 for single hander. It might happen that eventually they get to a point where it would be possible (a la Guga) but I'm not sure I would encourage it, maybe if they do it naturally and it works then fair enough.

I don't really see why there is such subjective arguments here. (Especially trying to "Blame" lazy pros for teaching the shot that the VAST majority of top players now use!)

Yes, there are indeed lazy, ignorant, close-minded pros teaching tennis out there. But, to say it is the lazy pro that teaches two handed strokes makes no sense.

While there are still a number of very solid players on tour with one-handed backhands, the propensity of numbers (now around 92% of the top 100 women and about 77% of the top men), shows the two-handed backhand is the dominant stroke.

That said, I've never had a problem with a player who has indeed mastered the one-handed backhand.

(I'm as objective as they come: I've taught 35 years, personally use a one-handed backhand, taught one-handed backhands for the first almost ten years of my career...and now teach all beginner--regardless of them wanting to become pros or not--two-handed backhands.

Read my earlier post too: It is EXTREMELY rare to see a player first learn to hit two-handed not be able to hit one-handed backhands well. Nor do I find it a difficult transition for two-handers to move to a one-handed backhand if they find they just feel that is their stroke. HOWEVER, I have seen hundreds of players who first learned one-handed try to learn two-handed backhands with far greater difficulty and usually with most reverting back to their inferior but more comfortable one-handed backhand.

I won't label one backhand "superior" to another. However, I think I have enough experience to be able to say with certainty, that as a general learning pattern, the two-handed backhand works not just for those kids in the 8's, 10's and 12's be more successful, but that the stroke works for most players of all ages, far better than teaching the one-handed backhand.

If you talk to any qualified pro who has been around for a while and has produced successful players, ask them if they had 100 players and wanted to give all 100 the best chance at hitting backhands well, which shot they would teach.

Almost without exception, these pros would teach the two-handed backhand to those 100 students.

Click to expand...

So I was listening to some Eric Clapton and now just sort of browsing oldie but goodie threads.

I have a question on this. On the surface, it's hard to question the 1BH v 2BH. Everybody has 2BH so it must be better. And Nole just gave us more proof yesterday, right?

But when you consider the math behind the 77% quoted above, wouldn't it go something like this?:

What is percentage of serious junior boys with 1BH? I don't know, so let me make an ambitious guess. Lets say 10% (which I think is a high guess).

So, lets pretend the top 100 players came from a pool of 100000 players (for the point I'm making, doesn't matter if I'm close or not on this)

So of our 100000 players, 10000 have 1BH and 90000 have 2BH.

So at the pro level players that made it are:

1BH: 23/10000 = 0.2300%
2BH: 77/90000 = 0.0856%

So, with my (inflated?) 10% of juniors playing with 1BH assumption, the 1BH player has a 3x better chance of making top 100!? (More if my 10% is high, less if my 10% is low)

Im sure there are flaws here, so have at it.

Also, yesterday, it seemed that the Fed 1BH held up ok. Seems more like the FH let down Roger actually. Looking at some stats now. He played two tight sets with Nole, total points was 96 Nole, 95 Fed; So close yet Fed had only 8 FH winners and 24 FH errors. And when he served for 2nd set, he was up 40-15 and missed 4 straight FHs. So again, looking under the hood a little it seems that the FH cost Roger. So I don't think Nole's win is a win for the 2BH v 1BH is it?

Interesting to see this thread brought back to life, as this question was raised on a f'book coaches group just the other day. I believe my argument still stands in that the barriers to kids learning single handers are now removed by ROG, but I still don't see coaches teaching single handers (or even giving kids the chance to try one handers, which is probably more important).

there are a lot of misinformation in 1hbh instructions out there. most coaches themselves are not confident how to hit a really good 1hbh. students will try their instruction and quickly feel lack of confidence in the method and will think 1hbh is something very difficult and not reliable. the flaws in swing path is rampant out there. should be able to shorten the swing around the contact point but rarely a coach understand these stuff. biomechanical understanding of 1hbh is in a sad state.

why not give out some of your pointers that you'd use when starting to teach 1hbh?

def wasn't referring to a specific coach. just commenting on general state of 1hbh instructions, one of the reasons why so many juniors don't see continued improvement in their 1hbh while all other parts improve.

some comments on the set of instruction. in followthru the guy in the photo def has his wrist higher up than the eye level unlike the teaching points, which I tend to agree with. this sounds like a small point but the swing path changes depending on such small finishing position. the ideal swing path needs to be more flat than too much low to high like in FH. the guy in photo swings very low to high. another point about elbow. agree that it should be straight at the contact but straightening too early is not a very good habit that limits the versatility of the stroke. the swing should be versatile enough to allow quicker swing than normal full swing without sacrificing the solidity of the racquet in position for handling high paced shots. bent elbow up high as a quick prep allows such kind of flat hitting. gasquet's prep is close to what i mean. also almagro.
in general i think low to high swing is too emphasized. coaches should understand wrist movement and range of motions are different b/w fh and bh.

I'd be curious for Coaching Mastery or anyone to come up with an explanation why 1BH males seem 3x (or more) likely to make it as a pro as a two handers (based on argument made in my prev post).

As for teaching, I agree that it's a shot that's not understood. Both technically and tactically.

If you think the game is all about power, then it's hard to argue a case for the 1BH. However, if you think tennis is a game that requires a lot of different shots and options and situations, then a player with a 1BH could be said to have a 'full set of clubs' versus trying to play Sawgrass with only his woods.

I also think the 1BH has silently had a technical revolution while we were all watching the serves and forehands. I think Ash's pictures show it very well, the racket head is indeed accelerating up and into the ball with much more racket speed that your dad's 1BH. The modern 1BH can deliver that racket speed into pace or spin, but more to the point...to both. The racket speed of Federer/Gasquet/Almagro/Waw etc gives them a lot of options with the shot that the 1BH of old could never imagine.

Interesting to see this thread brought back to life, as this question was raised on a f'book coaches group just the other day. I believe my argument still stands in that the barriers to kids learning single handers are now removed by ROG, but I still don't see coaches teaching single handers (or even giving kids the chance to try one handers, which is probably more important).

Click to expand...

I think there is a big reason to go with the 2 hander if possible and I didn't see
it mentioned...although I didn't read past the part where someone was confused
on golfer's vs tennis elbow.

My reason is that Imo, one handers suffer against good first serves and even
against very good second serves in most cases. Best returners have normally been
2handers and that is part of the reason why I expect. Even Fed is limited with
what he can do against good serves to his Bh.
As has been stressed on here many times, Serve and rtns are a huge part of the
game.

I think there is a big reason to go with the 2 hander if possible and I didn't see
it mentioned...although I didn't read past the part where someone was confused
on golfer's vs tennis elbow.

My reason is that Imo, one handers suffer against good first serves and even
against very good second serves in most cases. Best returners have normally been
2handers and that is part of the reason why I expect. Even Fed is limited with
what he can do against good serves to his Bh.
As has been stressed on here many times, Serve and rtns are a huge part of the
game.

Click to expand...

you think Fed didn't have to handle big servers to win all those tournaments? most of the time the big servers couldn't handle his low slice returns as well as Fed handled their serves. it's not given 1hbh is weaker for returns. it all depends on how well you use it.

you think Fed didn't have to handle big servers to win all those tournaments? most of the time the big servers couldn't handle his low slice returns as well as Fed handled their serves. it's not given 1hbh is weaker for returns. it all depends on how well you use it.

Click to expand...

Agree. Note how many of the top doubles players have one-handed backhands and their game is all serve and return...very few groundies. Obviously helps on the volley too, but remarkable really how many doubles specialists have 1BHs. A quick look seems to show 9 of top 20 doubles players have 1BHs if I looked at it right.

So, with my (inflated?) 10% of juniors playing with 1BH assumption, the 1BH player has a 3x better chance of making top 100!? (More if my 10% is high, less if my 10% is low)

Im sure there are flaws here, so have at it.

Click to expand...

I think you may have a good point.
My theory is that for the tiny portion of the extremely talented that could become pros, the variety of possible shots and the processes that you have to go through as you develop to have a really good one-handed backhand help the player progress.

what about in his peak years? his style didn't change much despite some lost ground on confidence recently due to many possible things. in those years what I remember that was striking was he would so often out ace the best servers of that period due to his phenomenal return game. it was difficult to ace him due to great footwork and the reach 1hbh provided. I think his bh return could have been better if his swing had been more flat and aggressive like gasquet, but he has done well with 1hbh and I doubt his achievement could have been better or even equal if he had 2hbh.

and you think his Bh rtn against power serves was an asset in those wins??:???:

Click to expand...

don't know how aggressively a 2hbh could return those power serves but any 2hbh that could have returned those serves most likely were due to the athleticism not 2hbh. against a server who can paint the lines the short reach of 2hbh can be a liability. at pro level accurate serves are not uncommon tho in junior it's much more rare. that's why lots of successful juniors stand no chance in pro level. 1hbh is not a liability for juniors not learning it well is the liability.

case in point, god forbid, if an aspiring junior learns 1hbh from someone like Oscar he would stand no chance against even good high school players. but if he learns and develops something like gasquet, almagro, Feds, he will have no problem at any level.

The whole point of my asking this question was because mini-tennis removes the issue of high balls, at least through Red and Orange. Interestingly, when I was doing some research last night I found that Red (8&u) the ball never bounced above shoulder height for the contact, Orange (9&u) the same, ball might bounce above but never required a contact above shoulder.
Green (10&u) and Yellow (11+) however, were a slightly different story - seems to me the development of the child physically doesn't stay ahead of the compression of the ball (speaking generally) so they have to deal with higher bouncing balls for their height at Green and Yellow, relative to their height at Red and Orange.

My thoughts on the grip are therefore confirmed (I think) - eastern (knuckle on 1) to begin and allowing it to slide around to knuckle on 1/8 or 8 as required by the move to green/yellow.

Cheers

Click to expand...

My daughter currently plays mini orange tournaments. In the few years she's been playing I've seen two boys with one handed backhands.
One is actually part of the aegon futures. His backhand is amazing. Its quite refreshing to see that his coach went against the norm and produced a solid one hander.
I think the one handed backhand will cease to exist in 10 years however. I do Hope not though.

absolutely not, as any 2 hander can go to the 1 handed slice anytime he
needs to...where the 1 hander has to go right out of the box against big serves.

Pretty common acceptance that the 2 greatest returners over the last 25 yrs
both had 2 handers and showed this ability during some of the biggest serving
tennis has seen.

Click to expand...

It's a silly debate anyways, you can be successful with a one or two hander. It's all about personal preference. What do you mean by, "the one-hander has to go right out of the box against big serves"?

absolutely not, as any 2 hander can go to the 1 handed slice anytime he
needs to...where the 1 hander has to go right out of the box against big serves.

Click to expand...

that's the premise I don't agree with. with the right footwork and technique 1hbh doesn't have to go to slice right away for returns. if they have to there is some flaw. and I have to say the best 1hbh the world has seen is yet to come.

what about in his peak years? his style didn't change much despite some lost ground on confidence recently due to many possible things. in those years what I remember that was striking was he would so often out ace the best servers of that period due to his phenomenal return game. it was difficult to ace him due to great footwork and the reach 1hbh provided. I think his bh return could have been better if his swing had been more flat and aggressive like gasquet, but he has done well with 1hbh and I doubt his achievement could have been better or even equal if he had 2hbh.

Click to expand...

You're right, I don't know about the peak years. And it occurs to me that some of the players ahead of Fed in % return games/points probably play more on clay, and against worse opposition, which would inflate their return numbers somewhat (Berlocq for example).

Still, my (totally armchair) perspective is that Fed's return works extremely well for getting the ball in play, but that he's less able to be aggressive with it than someone like Djokovic or Murray. But my perception comes from watching a bunch of matches on TV and nothing else, so it could definitely be misguided.

Asking whether Fed would have done better with a 2hbh is like asking whether he'd do better if he were 6'4''-- he'd be a different player. I do think if that you grafted the returns of a Djokovic or a Murray or a Ferrer onto his game he probably would be better in certain circumstances.

It's a silly debate anyways, you can be successful with a one or two hander. It's all about personal preference. What do you mean by, "the one-hander has to go right out of the box against big serves"?

Click to expand...

Not silly, very serious. Don't you know that in every aspects of living and being a human being there can be one and only one superior way of doing or believing?

One religion, one economic system, one politica party, one way to play tennis, one brand one men's thong underwear.

Clearly, my way is the best and everybody else is inferior and it is my job to tell you that you are wrong.

It's a silly debate anyways, you can be successful with a one or two hander. It's all about personal preference. What do you mean by, "the one-hander has to go right out of the box against big serves"?

Click to expand...

What I mean is in most matches with a good server against the best one handers,
the one hander is left to block, chip and slice to try and deal with the big serves.
2 handers don't labor under this limitation near as often. It's not uncommon at
all to see Agassi or DJ to rip back fast serves with nice TS Bh rtns. Far more
uncommon for even the best 1 handers.

Not silly, very serious. Don't you know that in every aspects of living and being a human being there can be one and only one superior way of doing or believing?.

Click to expand...

be as sarcastic as you like, but the best returners of the modern men's game
have been 2 handers.
I like the 1 hander plenty, but for me, this is an area that is very important given
how many big servers there are.
Imo the one hander is superior in ways too, but none that are as important.
Are you suggesting there are no pros and cons to each?

be as sarcastic as you like, but the best returners of the modern men's game
have been 2 handers.
I like the 1 hander plenty, but for me, this is an area that is very important given
how many big servers there are.
Imo the one hander is superior in ways too, but none that are as important.
Are you suggesting there are no pros and cons to each?

Click to expand...

Can I join your crusade (or do you prefer jihad) for the final solution to the 1bh blight?

Can I join your crusade (or do you prefer jihad) for the final solution to the 1bh blight?

2 handedness is next to Godliness. So say we all.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you misplaced sarcastic aggression is about. Talking about
over the top reactions?? If this is an anti MTM thing, you may want to
reconsider, as Oscar seems to prefer to teach the one hander.

If someone wants a 2hander, I'm glad to help and teach it. I'm just merely
stating that I would not encourage it over the 2 hander for jr who is looking to
be his best; assuming they are trying to make a decision on this.
Feel free to mention all the reasons you prefer the 1 hander. I guess you play
with it? :???:
I don't see you badgering the folks making their case for the 1 hander...so
clearly you are biased in that direction for some reason, right?
I use both myself, along with a lefty Fh at times : )

Ok, this one is reasonable, since we are talking about 1hander vs big serves.
...what do you see?
See any 1 handers in the top 10?
Flavio who has little data against big servers, right?
Anyone I'm missing?
Even this stat can be misleading, but I guess the best we have.

I looked at the better ones at the top like DJ and Ferrer and their % of pts won
against big servers like Fed and Delpo were 10-20% higher than Youzhny's at #20.
Now 10% may not sound like much, but that was nearly twice as good in many
cases. Like where Youzhny's 12% against Fed vs DJ's 22-24% against Fed.
Just evidence though, not proof of course.

Ok, this one is reasonable, since we are talking about 1hander vs big serves.
...what do you see?
See any 1 handers in the top 10?
Flavio who has little data against big servers, right?
Anyone I'm missing?
Even this stat can be misleading, but I guess the best we have.

I looked at the better ones at the top like DJ and Ferrer and their % of pts won
against big servers like Fed and Delpo were 10-20% higher than Youzhny's at #20.
Now 10% may not sound like much, but that was nearly twice as good in many
cases. Like where Youzhny's 12% against Fed vs DJ's 22-24% against Fed.
Just evidence though, not proof of course.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything really. Just providing some #'s in case ppl want to use them for argument's sake.

only youznhy in top 10 for 2nd serves.
the other 1 handers seem to be in clumps toward the lower half of the top 20's.

Maybe the stats might look different at lower levels such as 6.0 / open players. Idk.
I like my 1hbh because it's cool.

I'm not saying anything really. Just providing some #'s in case ppl want to use them for argument's sake.

only youznhy in top 10 for 2nd serves.
the other 1 handers seem to be in clumps toward the lower half of the top 20's.

Maybe the stats might look different at lower levels such as 6.0 / open players. Idk.
I like my 1hbh because it's cool.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know what you mean. I love one handers in general and enjoy using them
in my matches as well. They are cool to hit and look beautiful when done well.
Mine probably is not that cool looking though, lol. I'd say once the pt is in play,
they are about even and pretty good for second serves as well, but Imo it is
quite clear that the 2 hander has the upper hand against big serves by a wide
margin.

Yes, I know what you mean. I love one handers in general and enjoy using them
in my matches as well. They are cool to hit and look beautiful when done well.
Mine probably is not that cool looking though, lol. I'd say once the pt is in play,
they are about even and pretty good for second serves as well, but Imo it is
quite clear that the 2 hander has the upper hand against big serves by a wide
margin.

5263,
the ranking difference for these stats exaggerate the actual diff. look at %.

2012 2nd serve rtn. the best of 2h 56% vs best of 1h 54%. difference is 2%. out of 100 2nd serves, returning 56 of them vs 54 of them. this difference is smaller than the ranking on this list suggests.

based on these numbers you would discourage a junior developing 1h. i wouldn't. also i believe we might be seeing the best 2hbh now but the best 1hbh is yet to come. once the point starts, 1h can offer advantages over 2h if the playing style is well matched with technique.

i concede there is slight advantage for return but overall i believe it could be overcome with the style and gamesmanship. and that adv may not be as significant as it looks from these stats.

5263,
the ranking difference for these stats exaggerate the actual diff. look at %.

i concede there is slight advantage for return but overall i believe it could be overcome with the style and gamesmanship. and that adv may not be as significant as it looks from these stats.

Click to expand...

I never suggested discourage the one hander.
Not sure how you see the stats as exaggerating anything except a 1 handers chances.
Why start a point in a hole when there is a better option?

No reason to look at second serve pts since this whole pt is about big 1st serves.
Even looking at 2012 avg means little in general imo. I think you have to look
at results against big servers 1st serves to be on topic.
Some of the 1 hander players didn't have much exposure to the big servers,
so their stats looked better imo.
I think the advantage is way bigger than these stats when watching a match
where you see Fed chip his rtn into the pt, as opposed to DJ rifling back rtns
with authority whenever he wants to be more aggressive.

Four of the top 10 guys who were best at winning points returning first serves were one-handers (I'm sure higher than the percentage on the tour then). Maybe it is just that there are less one-handed guys these days. Playing lots of matches on clay courts certainly affects the statistics.

I never suggested discourage the one hander.
Not sure how you see the stats as exaggerating anything except a 1 handers chances.
Why start a point in a hole when there is a better option?

No reason to look at second serve pts since this whole pt is about big 1st serves.
Even looking at 2012 avg means little in general imo. I think you have to look
at results against big servers 1st serves to be on topic.
Some of the 1 hander players didn't have much exposure to the big servers,
so their stats looked better imo.
I think the advantage is way bigger than these stats when watching a match
where you see Fed chip his rtn into the pt, as opposed to DJ rifling back rtns
with authority whenever he wants to be more aggressive.

Click to expand...

1hbh players start the point in a hole whenever they are returning? watching the top players never felt that way. and these top 1handers regularly beat lower ranked 2handers who might even have big serves. 2h doesn't mean you'll be able to return like Dj some day and 1h doesn't mean you won't be able to return better than Fed some day. also I'm not a fan of Feds chip return but it is very effective. most of the time you cannot hit a winner off that. Fed made the best out of it and achieved a winning record that won't be matched in a long time. return is important but serving even more so. not all great 2h returners have great serves and if you do congrats you have high ranking but vast majority never achieve that kind of level so you can't sit pretty cuz you have 2hbh.

Four of the top 10 guys who were best at winning points returning first serves were one-handers (I'm sure higher than the percentage on the tour then). Maybe it is just that there are less one-handed guys these days. Playing lots of matches on clay courts certainly affects the statistics.

2005 1st Serve Return Points Won

1. Rafael Nadal
1520 4123 37% 89

2. Guillermo Coria
1395 3843 36% 82

3. David Ferrer
1191 3329 36% 72

4. Nikolay Davydenko
1268 3577 35% 86

Click to expand...

Few things to take into account imo.
1st is that 1st 4 are all 2 handers.
2ond is looking at the yr total doesn't tell us about who they faced.
the yr I checked...2012... the top guy with a one hander had not faced the
known big servers.
3rd is I looked at how to 2handers did against Delpo & Fed's serve, then looked how top
1 handers did. In each case I looked at the % was way better for 2 handers.
(I also looked at several other big severs and each case, 2handers were significantly better)
Your point is well taken though.

1hbh players start the point in a hole whenever they are returning? watching the top players never felt that way. and these top 1handers regularly beat lower ranked 2handers who might even have big serves. 2h doesn't mean you'll be able to return like Dj some day and 1h doesn't mean you won't be able to return better than Fed some day. also I'm not a fan of Feds chip return but it is very effective. most of the time you cannot hit a winner off that. Fed made the best out of it and achieved a winning record that won't be matched in a long time. return is important but serving even more so. not all great 2h returners have great serves and if you do congrats you have high ranking but vast majority never achieve that kind of level so you can't sit pretty cuz you have 2hbh.

Click to expand...

So now you are suggesting the 1 hand rtn is just as good because players can
win with it? really?
No one said you can't win with a 1 hander or that a 2 hander can make you
serve better, lol. No one said that rtn was as important as serve, did they
No one said Fed couldn't chip into a pt with his one hander or that all you had to
do was have a 2 hander and sit pretty.

Really surprised that it is hard for anyone to see that against a very big 1st
serve, that the 2 hander has an edge, but I guess if you are confused by all
that distraction above, maybe that explains it??

Maybe I was lucky to have a very big server make it more clear for me. He
told me that whenever he sees he is facing a 1 hander he feels it is a big
advantage for him and explained that he now had a low risk place to go any time he
needed it. If facing a 2 hander he felt it was way more risky to go at the body or
to the Bh wheel house, because it may just come back with interest from a
2 hander. If they had the 2 hander, he then focused on overpowering the Fh
when he needed to go that route, which he could do, but was way harder than
overrunning the 1 hander Bh.

The overpowering option is not something most of us have, but with very big
servers, on important points, they can bear down more thru the box and limit
the risk and having to go to a 2ond serve.

So now you are suggesting the 1 hand rtn is just as good because players can
win with it? really?
No one said you can't win with a 1 hander or that a 2 hander can make you
serve better, lol. No one said that rtn was as important as serve, did they
No one said Fed couldn't chip into a pt with his one hander or that all you had to
do was have a 2 hander and sit pretty.

Really surprised that it is hard for anyone to see that against a very big 1st
serve, that the 2 hander has an edge, but I guess if you are confused by all
that distraction above, maybe that explains it??

Maybe I was lucky to have a very big server make it more clear for me. He
told me that whenever he sees he is facing a 1 hander he feels it is a big
advantage for him and explained that he now had a low risk place to go any time he
needed it. If facing a 2 hander he felt it was way more risky to go at the body or
to the Bh wheel house, because it may just come back with interest from a
2 hander. If they had the 2 hander, he then focused on overpowering the Fh
when he needed to go that route, which he could do, but was way harder than
overrunning the 1 hander Bh.

The overpowering option is not something most of us have, but with very big
servers, on important points, they can bear down more thru the box and limit
the risk and having to go to a 2ond serve.

Click to expand...

Great anecdotal evidence about a big-server you know. Here's some more anecdotal evidence from another big server: Pete Sampras. One of the players he hated to face and did not match up well against was Michael Stich. Agassi, who you site as an example of the prototypical great returner, was an easier matchup for the big-serving Sampras.

Please, watch some pro tennis on tv. You will see players like Federer, Almagro, Wawrinka, and Haas hitting monster one-handed topspin returns against the the biggest servers in the game.

Players of all levels can succeed with either style. It's all about what's comfortable for them.